Eminent Domain
Part II of the Series—Analyzing Court Cases
Power of Eminent Domain
Case: From the Supreme Court of Missouri-- City of Arnold, Appellant v. Homer R. Tourkakis, et al., Respondents. Go to http://www.courts.mo.gov/Courts/PubOpinions.nsf/0f87ea4ac0ad4c0186256405005d3b8e/8bd102d5546a573b8625740f006a459c?OpenDocument to read the summary of the case.
SUMMARIZING THE FACTS
1. Who are the parties?
Appellant(s) or Petitioner(s)
The City of Arnold, Missouri
Respondent (s)
Homer R. and Julie Tourkakis
2. What happened in this case?
- The people and the action in question.
The Tourkakises own a dentist office in an area that the Arnold City Council wants to change. The other people who own property in this area have already sold it to Arnold, but the Tourkakises do not want to sell their property. Arnold wants to exercise its power of eminent domain to obtain the property in order to go forward with redeveloping the area. Arnold brought a condemnation proceeding against the Tourkakises in the Jefferson County Circuit Court.
- Terms to be defined in this case:
· Blighted property--any area where dwellings predominate which, by reason of dilapidation, overcrowding, lack of ventilation, light or sanitary facilities or any combination of these factors are detrimental to safety, health and morals. (See RSMo Section 99.020 at http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C000-099/0990000020.HTM .)
· Charter city—According to the Missouri Constitution, Article VI, Section 19, any city with a population over 5,000 may become a charter city by drawing up a document, called a charter that lays out how the city will be governed. This is an option for cities, not a requirement.
(See http://www.moga.mo.gov/const/A06021.HTM .)
· Condemnation proceeding—this is the legal process where a governmental body wanting to exercise the power of eminent domain asks the court to force an unwilling party to sell the governmental body his/her property.
· Eminent domain-- The power possessed by governmental bodies to take property for a public use as long as they pay the owners a fair price for the property.
- Background legal information:
· Ordinarily, the power of eminent domain can only be used by a governmental body to take property that will be used for a public purpose—schools, highways, libraries, hospitals, etc. However, there is a legal trend emerging that allows governmental bodies to use eminent domain to take property in a “blighted” areas and use them for private purposes, such as strip malls and office complexes, so that these areas can be more desirable or more economically viable. (See Kelo v. City of New London at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZS.html.)
· Missouri was far ahead of this 2005 United States Supreme Court case because its constitution was amended in 1954 with this provision in Article VI:
Reclamation of blighted, substandard or insanitary areas.
Section 21. Laws may be enacted, and any city or county operating under a constitutional charter may enact ordinances, providing for the clearance, replanning, reconstruction, redevelopment and rehabilitation of blighted, substandard or insanitary areas, and for recreational and other facilities incidental or appurtenant thereto, and for taking or permitting the taking, by eminent domain, of property for such purposes, and when so taken the fee simple title to the property shall vest in the owner, who may sell or otherwise dispose of the property subject to such restrictions as may be deemed in the public interest.
· The Missouri General Assembly further addressed this issue in 2000 with passage of RSMo Section 99.820, which said any municipality may use eminent domain to obtain property for the purposes of redeveloping a blighted area. (See at http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C000-099/0990000820.HTM .)
Note: The Missouri General Assembly did respond to the Kelo case with the enactment of Chapter 523 in Missouri Statutes. Go to http://www.moga.mo.gov/STATUTES/C523.HTM
3. What does the party who initiated the lawsuit want to happen in this case?
The city of Arnold wants to use eminent domain to force the Tourkakises to sell them the property and go forward with its redevelopment project.
4. How did the lower courts rule?
The Circuit Court of Jefferson County ruled that since Arnold was a non-charter city that it did not have the power to use eminent domain to condemn property in a blighted area that will be redeveloped for private, non-public use, and that to the extent that Section 99.820, a law passed by the Missouri General Assembly, would allow for Arnold to exercise eminent domain for this purpose, that law was unconstitutional. In other words, the legislature did not have constitutional authority to make this law.
Note: Since this was a constitutional issue, the case went straight to the Missouri Supreme Court and not first to the Eastern District Court of Appeals.
5. How did the last court to hear the case rule?
The Supreme Court of Missouri disagreed with the Jefferson County Circuit Court and has sent it back to the circuit court to go forward with the condemnation proceedings. The Supreme Court pointed out that the Missouri General Assembly did have the constitutional authority to pass laws allowing all cities, including non-charter cities, to exercise the power of eminent domain to condemn “blighted” property. The Court held that the words-- Laws may be enacted—in Article VI allowed for the legislature to make these laws. It is important to note Footnote 1 of the court’s opinion:
Because the court below believed that Arnold had no authority to exercise the power of eminent domain, it did not reach the issues of whether the real estate in this case is blighted, whether there was a private taking for a private use, whether the taking was for a public purpose, or whether eminent domain is good or bad for the state. Those issues, therefore, are not before this Court, and this Court expresses no opinion as to them.
FRAMING THE ISSUE
1. What is the legal issue in this case?
The SOLE legal issue in this case is whether the Missouri General Assembly could pass a law that allows a non-charter city to use eminent domain to condemn private property to be used for redevelopment of a blighted area.
2. What sections of the United States or Missouri Constitution, Bill of Rights, Civil Rights laws or other laws apply to this case?
See above for constitutional and statutory references.
3. Are there past court decisions that are relevant to this case and have precedential value for this case? The following quote from the decision is helpful:
The legislature has the right to authorize the exercise of the sovereign power of eminent domain. Bd. of Regents for Ne. Mo. State Teachers Coll. v. Palmer, 204 S.W.2d 291, 294 (Mo. 1947). Unless restricted by the constitution, the power is unlimited and practically absolute. State ex inf. Danforth v. State Envtl. Improvement Auth., 518 S.W.2d 68, 72 (Mo. banc 1975).
4. How is this case similar or different from these past cases?
Students should brainstorm on this question.
MAKING A DECISION AND EXPLAINING THE REASONING BEHIND THE DECISION
1. What are the arguments for both parties?
Appellant(s):
Students should brainstorm about this. The interpretation of this law requires analyzing words and punctuation. Do the words from the Missouri Constitution, Article VI, Section 21--Laws may be enacted, and any city or county operating under a constitutional charter may enact ordinances… --mean the legislature may enact laws AND so may charter counties and cities.
Respondent(s)
Students should brainstorm about this. Again it is about words and punctuation—does the language from the Missouri Constitution restrict the power of eminent domain in regards to blighted areas to charter cities.
2. What kind of impact will the decision have on the law? On society?
Students should brainstorm on this question.